create_midi_track

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the description's job is to add context and it does: it discloses the 8-track project limit and advises reuse. It does not say whether inserting at an index shifts existing tracks or what the call returns, but the added constraint is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the default/limit guidance following. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations on returns, the description covers the track-limit constraint well but leaves gaps: insertion semantics at a non-default index and what identifier comes back for the new track are unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the one non-obvious parameter (index with default -1 meaning append) but says nothing about name (whether it must be unique, whether null leaves an auto-generated label), leaving half the surface undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Add a new MIDI track" gives a specific verb plus resource, which separates it from siblings like create_midi_clip, create_scene and delete_track. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It supplies real usage guidance: pass -1 to append, and prefer reusing an existing empty track because Live Lite caps projects at 8 audio+MIDI tracks. There is no explicit mention of when to choose create_midi_clip or load_instrument instead, which keeps it out of the top band.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.